Judge blocks DOJ demand to set aside Washington ballots while the voter-list case is heard
A federal judge in Seattle has barred the US Justice Department for 14 days from demanding that Washington election officials set aside ballots cast by voters on a federal list of suspected noncitizens. Two federal prosecutors wrote to Secretary of State Steve Hobbs on 26 October with a list of more than 400 people they said were noncitizens who had voted, and demanded that any ballot from a listed voter not be verified or counted until citizenship was confirmed, warning that officials could face prosecution. Hobbs refused, replying that the list 'includes United States citizens and is not reliable'. Three voters' organisations sued, and on 5 November Judge Jamal N. Whitehead issued a 14-day order restraining the demand and the threats, writing: 'Voters who followed the rules should not lose their votes to a list that even its authors admit may include citizens.' A hearing on a longer order is set for 18 November.
Checking in progress
This story is still being checked. Claims below are published as claims — never dressed as facts — and each one moves only when the evidence earns it.
- Collecting reportsDone
- Grouping the versionsDone
- Checking claims4 of 4 claims checked
- 4Human gateWe are here
4 of 4 claims checked so far · step 4 of 4: Human gate
Key points
- A federal judge has barred the Justice Department for 14 days from demanding that Washington set aside ballots of voters on its federal list.
- The prosecutors announced a list of 405 suspected noncitizens; the letter itself says 'over 400' people and over 1,500 votes, and concedes some may have since naturalised.
- Hobbs refused, calling the list unreliable and noting it includes citizens; the court recorded that at least 62 listed people were never sent a ballot.
- A hearing on a longer order is set for 18 November; counties certify by 24 November.
What happened
Washington's case follows the same demand in California. The Justice Department demanded on 13 October that California set aside ballots of suspected noncitizens; a federal court there denied the department's own request for an order on 28 October, the Ninth Circuit held on 30 October that the department has no authority to make such demands of a state, and the Supreme Court declined to disturb that on 2 November. Judge Whitehead's order rests in part on that ruling.
The Washington demand landed eight days before the election, while ballots were already being returned and processed. The argument before the court was not, in the end, about whether any listed person is a citizen — the judge decided only that the federal government may not compel a state to hold back registered voters' ballots, or threaten its officials with prosecution for counting them.
Both sides, in their own words
Both sides heard. Neither believed for free. Publishing a side's version is not endorsing it — the claim checks below are where verdicts live.
Side A · OneAmerica Votes and the other plaintiffs
- The federal list is faulty: it includes citizens, duplicates and people who were never sent a ballot, and the demand — backed by threats of prosecution — pressures officials in the middle of counting.
- Federal officials may not lawfully demand that a state set aside the ballots of registered voters; the Ninth Circuit held the same in the California case days earlier.
Side B · The Justice Department and the federal prosecutors
- The list identifies noncitizens who have been voting — 405 individuals, and more than 1,500 votes in all — and officials who help ineligible voters risk prosecution.
- In court the department argued the letter was only a request for cooperation, that any set-aside would be momentary, and that nothing compelled the state.
Independently verified
On 26 October 2026 two federal prosecutors, Pete Serrano and Charles Neil Floyd, wrote to Secretary of State Steve Hobbs enclosing a list, supplied by the Department of Homeland Security, of 'over 400 individuals and over 1,500 total votes'. They said the listed people were noncitizens who, 'with a high level of confidence, have voted' in elections as recently as the August 2026 primary, while acknowledging some may since have naturalised. At a press conference the same day they put the number of individuals at 405. The letter demanded that Washington review the list within 24 hours and, if a listed person had returned a ballot, instruct officials 'to not verify the signature and/or tabulate the ballot until citizenship can be determined', with a deadline of noon on 28 October; the prosecutors warned that officials who assist an ineligible voter could themselves be guilty of a crime. Hobbs replied on 28 October: 'A preliminary investigation confirms what your letter acknowledges: This list includes United States citizens and is not reliable. Without individualized proof of ineligibility, it would be both irresponsible and illegal for election officials to decline to process a registered voter's ballot.' He said the list arrived as a printed PDF without voter ID numbers or addresses, included duplicates and people not registered or inactive, and he gave no instruction to set any ballot aside. The court later recorded findings that at least 62 of the listed people had never been sent a ballot because their registrations were cancelled, inactive or could not be found, that others had shown proof of US citizenship, and that no one on the list had been charged with a crime. At a press conference on 29 October Hobbs called the list 'garbage' and noted Washington had documented 15 instances of noncitizen voting between 1982 and 2025. OneAmerica Votes, the Latino Community Fund of Washington State and the United Food and Commercial Workers union sued on 30 October. On 5 November Judge Jamal N. Whitehead granted a temporary restraining order, in part, for 14 days: the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the named officials are restrained from directing or demanding that any Washington election official remove listed voters from the rolls, refuse them ballots, or segregate and not count their ballots for the 3 November 2026 general election, and from threatening officials with prosecution for refusing. The order does not stop the departments sharing information, stating their views, asking for cooperation, or investigating unlawful voting, and it does not enjoin the President. The judge denied the government's request to delay the order pending appeal. He wrote: 'Defendants did not ask. They directed Washington to set aside specific voters' ballots, set a deadline, told election officials they would be prosecuted if they counted those ballots as state law requires.' The department had argued in court that the letter was only a request and any set-aside momentary. Counting continued under Washington's normal procedures: the court recorded that counties have been processing returned ballots since they were mailed out by 16 October, that counties must certify their results by 24 November and the state by 3 December. No report read describes any county segregating ballots, and Hobbs never ordered it.Not yet verified
Nothing outstanding.Claim by claim
Why this label: The letter is an exhibit to the complaint, read in full; the 405 figure is the prosecutors' own announcement figure from their press conference transcript, also filed as an exhibit — the letter itself says 'over 400'.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: Hobbs's letter is an exhibit to the complaint, read in full, and is also published on the secretary of state's site; the 62 figure and the no-charges point are findings recorded in the court's order; the press-conference words are as reported by FOX 13 Seattle.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: The order itself (Document 21, filed 5 November 2026), read in full on CourtListener; Democracy Docket's report of the ruling is in the same terms.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Show all claims (1 more)
Why this label: The certification timetable is stated in the court's order; the absence of any segregation is stated as far as the reporting read goes.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
What we know / what we don't know yet
What we know
- The letter, the secretary of state's reply and the judge's order are all public court documents, read in full.
- Counting and certification are proceeding on Washington's normal timetable.
What we don't know yet
- Whether the Justice Department files an appeal — it asked for a delay to pursue one and was refused, and no appeal had been reported when this page was corrected.
- What the court decides at the 18 November hearing on a preliminary injunction.
- Whether the second federal list the prosecutors promised was ever sent.
Show more (1)
- How many of the listed people are in fact citizens — the state has not published a count; the court decided only who may compel a set-aside, not anyone's citizenship.
Why it matters
The ruling draws a line other states are watching: a federal list, however it was built, does not by itself let Washington be made to hold back ballots mid-count — and the list in this case included citizens, duplicates and people who were never sent a ballot at all. What happens at the 18 November hearing decides whether the line holds beyond two weeks.
Background
Show the background timeline (8)
The Justice Department demands that California set aside ballots of suspected noncitizen voters; California refuses.
Two federal prosecutors write to Secretary Hobbs with a list of over 400 suspected noncitizens and demand listed voters' ballots not be verified or counted; they announce 405 names at a press conference.
Hobbs replies that the list includes citizens and is not reliable, and refuses; in California, a federal court denies the department's own motion over its demand there.
OneAmerica Votes and two other organisations sue in Seattle; the Ninth Circuit holds the department has no authority to make such demands of a state.
The Supreme Court declines to disturb the California ruling.
Judge Whitehead grants a 14-day order restraining the Washington demand and the prosecution threats.
Hearing scheduled on a preliminary injunction.
Deadline for Washington counties to certify their results.
Update history
No silent edits. Every change is written here, with its time.
- Latest
Correction: an earlier version of this page gave wrong details of this case — who brought it, the date and senders of the prosecutors' letter, the figures in it, and the dates of the court order and the next hearing. The case was brought by OneAmerica Votes and two other organisations, not by the state; the letter was sent on 26 October by two federal prosecutors; the order was issued on 5 November; and the hearing is on 18 November. The page has been rewritten from the court documents themselves.
Published in Checking state — checking continues, and claims are labelled as reporting develops. Basis: the court file in the Washington voter-list case, including the Justice Department's demand letter and the judge's order.